MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W4407250481 · doi:10.1055/s-0045-1803865

The Tragus-Facial Angle: Proposition of a New Method to Estimate the Trajectory of the Frontal Branch of the Facial Nerve

2025· article· en· W4407250481 on OpenAlexaff
Guilherme Gago, Antonio Strangio, Martin Côté, Pierre‐Olivier Champagne

Bibliographic record

VenueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull Base · 2025
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldMedicine
TopicFacial Nerve Paralysis Treatment and Research
Canadian institutionsUniversité Laval
Fundersnot available
KeywordsPropositionTrajectoryArtificial intelligenceComputer scienceFacial nerveComputer visionPsychologyMedicineAnatomyPhysicsPhilosophyEpistemology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Pterional craniotomy is considered a workhorse in skull base surgery. Inferior extension of the skin incision for expanded approaches (such as orbitozygomatic craniotomies and variations), requires wider dissections and can lead to injury to the frontal branch of the facial nerve. Properly understanding the trajectory of the facial nerve and its relationship with surface anatomical structures is essential for its intraoperative preservation. Several methods with varying levels of complexity have been proposed to estimate the position of the facial nerve, with no consensus. We aim to describe a new and simple method to estimate the position of the frontal branch of the facial nerve for frontotemporal approaches. Methods: Formalin-fixed, silicon-injected cadaveric heads were dissected under the microscope from the stylomastoid foramen to the distal part (15 cm) of the frontal branch of the facial nerve. We measured the distances between the anterior edge of the tragus (point A) and two other points: a point on the same vertical line as point A at the intersection with the facial nerve (point B) and another point on a horizontal line from point A at the point of intersection with the frontal branch (FB) (point C). From these points, the angle between AB and BC (tragus-facial angle) was measured ([ Fig. 1A ]). Furthermore, we calculated the distance between a point 1 cm below point A on the vertical plane (A’) and the FB horizontally ([ Fig. 1B ]). Fig. 1: Cadaveric dissections showing tragus-facial angle calculation ( A ) and A’FB measurement method ( B ). Results: A total of 10 specimens were dissected. The right and left sides were dissected in the same proportion (50%). Data are summarized in [ Table 1 ]. The mean tragus-facial angle was 31.91° (SD ± 3.71), ranging from 26.56 to 36.87°. The mean AB distance was 26.8 mm (SD ± 2.66). Thus, to estimate the trajectory of the frontal branch with the tragus-facial angle method, the branch would follow the BC line: approximately 2.5 cm below the tragus at an angle of 30 degrees with the vertical plane. ([ Fig. 2 ]) The A’FB ranged from 9 to 13 mm with a mean of 10.92 mm (SD +- 1.18). Table 1 Summarized data from 10 specimens Measures Mean SD Range AB 26.8 mm 2.66 20–30 AC 16.3 mm 2.05 13–19 BC 30.8 mm 2.56 25–34 Tragus–facial angle 31.91° 3.71 26.56–36.87 A'FB 10.92 mm 1.18 09–13 Fig. 2 Left: Estimation of the position of the FB of the facial nerve according to the tragus–facial angle on the skin of a specimen. Right: Confirmation of the position of the facial nerve after dissection. Conclusion: The method described has acceptable variability and represents a simple alternative for estimating the position of the facial nerve during anterolateral approaches. Publication History Article published online: 07 February 2025 © 2025. Thieme. All rights reserved. Georg Thieme Verlag KG Oswald-Hesse-Straße 50, 70469 Stuttgart, Germany

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.001
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.002
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Theoretical or conceptual · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Methods · Consensus signal: Methods
Teacher disagreement score0.003
Threshold uncertainty score0.006

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0010.002
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0010.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0010.000
Bibliometrics0.0020.001
Science and technology studies0.0000.000
Scholarly communication0.0010.001
Open science0.0010.001
Research integrity0.0010.001
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.039
GPT teacher head0.361
Teacher spread0.322 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designTheoretical or conceptual
Domainnot available
GenreMethods

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations0
Published2025
Admission routes1
Has abstractno

Explore more

Same venueJournal of Neurological Surgery Part B Skull BaseSame topicFacial Nerve Paralysis Treatment and ResearchFrench-language works237,207